There is heated controversy among feminists, researchers, sexual medicine specialists, and pharmaceutical companies over sexual desire and desire difficulties: how it is described, defined in the DSM, represented in the media, and most importantly, how to address or treat it. The current DSM-5 amalgamated female disorders of desire and arousal into a single diagnosis called “female sexual interest/arousal disorder,” replacing the previous term of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). As Jenny Higgins and Patty Cason write in Contraceptive Technology, clinicians who interact with women concerned about levels of desire may be helped by understanding the changing perception and meaning of sexual desire, and the changing landscape within which sexual desire complaints have developed.
Dysmenorrhea is painfully prevalent among modern women who are limiting numbers of pregnancies and the time they spend breastfeeding. In a study of college students, 84% of those surveyed reported having experienced dysmenorrhea; only 9% missed exams due to dysmenorrhea, but 48.7% reported poor satisfaction with their academic performance because of menstrual pain. Even though dysmenorrhea is an ancient Greek word, dysmenorrhea has only recently been recognized as a medical problem. Before the 1970s, there were virtually no scientific articles studying any aspect of the condition. The latest Canadian Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines report that both primary and secondary dysmenorrhea are likely to respond to the same medical therapies, so initiation of therapy should not depend on establishing a precise diagnosis. However, the choice of therapy should reflect the desire for fertility.
Let’s face it. Contraceptive failure is the norm when measured over users’ reproductive life spans. The typical woman who uses reversible methods of contraception continuously from age 15 to age 45 would experience 1.8 contraceptive failures, according to James Trussell and colleagues. Of course, every provider knows that what matters most is correct and consistent use. But then again, technology fails people just as people fail technology. While we understand that women may not see contraceptive efficacy as their priority in selecting a method, they still need to have accurate information about efficacy. Unfortunately, provider bias often distorts the accuracy of what patients are told. And often, providers do not always include information on the factors that can make patients’ use of their chosen method more or less effective for them personally.
Now available in a new 21st edition, this well-known text with more than 2 million copies in print has been the leading family planning resource... Read more
After a brief hiatus in 2019, we look forward to bringing you new and improved Contraceptive Technology conferences in 2020! More dynamic and interactive presentations and clinical workshops that answer your most pressing, thorniest, or simply most frequent clinical questions The latest updates as well as reassessed standards of practice A learning environment that is innovative, interesting, and enjoyable Look for a ‘save-the-date’ announcement from the authors of Contraceptive Technology later this year. Want more regular notification? Sign up for our free monthly updates bringing you critical analyses of clinical issues.